This is actually the only positive review of this movie I've found anywhere on the internet. Rotten Tomato's currently has it at 24%,,Ouch,,,!!!!! Either Angie Errigo watched a completely different movie or everyone else is just wrong!!!

It's funny how sheep all nod together as one and accuse the one person bucking the trend is simultaneously the one who isn't thinking for themselves.

Giving The Lone Ranger four stars and The Godfather five doesn't mean they're being compared to one another. Fairness isn't judging different things the same, it's judging different things differently. By your standards I guess Raiders of the Lost Ark rates as the worst Mafia movie ever.

Anyway, I saw The Lone Ranger the other night and have no idea what movie the other critics watched. Ms. Errigo's review matched the movie I saw though.

...what Wild Wild West was to Men in Black, what The Hobbit was to Fellowship of the Ring and what Star Wars Episode 1 was to A New Hope. It is kind of entertaining, there are a few beautiful shots and Verbinski knows how to put a spectacular action scene together. But all is totally lost in a confused screenplay with endless subplots and a sinister tone that doesn't suit an adventure film... as for Depp's acting.... WTF??

I don't know where to start. The annoying "Western" accents, the bad acting or just the plane bad story. While Disney could have had a brilliant franchise on there hand they managed to muck it up. First big mistake was casting Depp who does his best Jack Sparrow with a bird on his head act the entire film and then secondly they cast Armie Hammer next to him who just doesn't bring any kind of charisma or likeability to the Ranger himself. They aren't helped by a weak script and effects that look like they have been stolen out of Wild Wild West and Shanghai Noon, but done poorly (train wreck at the beginning of the film is the most prominent that springs to mind). There is also the poor supporting cast who look like they have been borrowed from Tim Burton for a couple of hours. I honestly can't believe Disney are pissing away even more on it converting for IMAX!!

Firstly well done Angie for being honest and not being swayed by mainstream opinion, as many will be. Secondly this film was admittedly not a 4 star film but it is not quite as joyless as stated. The film is overlong, has a jarring narrative framing, too many characters and an uncertain tone. Yet the chemistry between Depp and Hammer is fair, there may be too many pirate references but Depp still does his brand of kooky pleasantly enough. The music is awesome and that final set-piece is better than the whole film that came before. In short this is a messy film but entertaining in a Saturday night kind of way as its source material was in a Saturday morning kind of way.

It's funny how sheep all nod together as one and accuse the one person bucking the trend is simultaneously the one who isn't thinking for themselves.

Giving The Lone Ranger four stars and The Godfather five doesn't mean they're being compared to one another. Fairness isn't judging different things the same, it's judging different things differently. By your standards I guess Raiders of the Lost Ark rates as the worst Mafia movie ever.

Anyway, I saw The Lone Ranger the other night and have no idea what movie the other critics watched. Ms. Errigo's review matched the movie I saw though.

Very nice post. It looks like the US critics only like sequels these days. The blockbusters that try to be a little daring get mild/bad reviews, while highly commercial sequels like STID or IM3 or Despicable Me 2 get good reviews.

I've registered on this site just to express my respect to the author of this independent review, strangely rare for this movie. After the development hell this film got into critics' hell, while many viewers enjoy it.

I'm bored by sequels with their predictable narrative schemes, and it keeps me away from cinemas. "The Lone Ranger" is different from typical Hollywood production due to its irony, non-linear story structure, unpredictable narrative turns and attention to curious details. I enjoyed train scenes. Actually, I enjoyed every scene in it:) This movie is smart and worth watching with your children, with your friends and with your parents.

European viewers are lucky not to compare this fabulous movie to some early TV series. Also European viewers are lucky not to be ashamed by sad scene of genocide of Native Americans (which arises lots of discussions across the Internet), which IS a part of American history. Either you will have a good memorable time watching this movie, or you will follow the mass of floppish critics.

After seeing all the dismal reviews I was ready to skip this one, but Angie's review convinced me to go see it. I was expecting a slapstick, silly adventure, but it was actually quite serious with some witty humour thrown in. Yes, it does get a bit long, but the plot is well thought out and I enjoyed Hammer and Depp's interaction. Thanks for sticking to your guns and not succumbing to the pressure to go the same way as every other critic. Sometimes I think they're so afraid to stick their neck out.

During multiple decades of the last century, cinema was littered with westerns which were the cheapest films to make, hence why there were so many. Nowadays if Hollywood were to make a big-budget western i.e. Cowboys & Aliens, it would be incredibly expensive and eventually flop. As with Disneyís big-budget production of The Lone Ranger hit cinemas at the States, it is already considered a box office bomb, and yet the film itself is not quite the stinker as predicted.

When the non-violent lawyer John Reid (Armie Hammer) returns to his hometown, he is deputised by his older brother as a Texas Ranger, so that he can arrest the outlaw Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner). Shot and killed in the line of fire, Reid returns as a spirit walker and joins forces with the Native American Tonto (Johnny Depp) and subdue the immoral actions of the corrupt and bring justice.

Conceived by George W. Trendle and Fran Striker (both of which were behind The Green Hornet), the Lone Ranger is very much a Robin Hood figure in the American Old West. Best known for his TV incarnation performed by Clayton Moore, the eponymous hero and his Indian sidekick Tonto have been through various interpretations from radio, television to film. The development of a Lone Ranger reboot has long been in hiatus, with Four Weddings and a Funeral director Mike Newell originally at the helm.

For the team that brought us the Pirates of the Caribbean series Ė director Gore Verbinski, producer Jerry Bruckheimer and screenwriters Terry Rossio and Ted Elliot Ė The Lone Ranger is given a swashbuckling tone similar to that franchise, to the point that it suffers from some of the same problems. For starters, it is too long which was a common flaw in Pirates and although it isnít as incomprehensible, there are sections of this film that couldíve been removed, particularly the involvement Helena Bonham Carterís Red Harrington, despite Carter being typically outlandish.

Since this is the origin story of how bumbling lawman John Reid becomes the masked avenger, you donít really see the romanticised figure that embodies justice in the Old West, up until the thrilling third act. For the most part, Armie Hammerís portrayal of John Reid is similar to James Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance as he initially a man who is all about the law through diplomacy, not violence.

While Hammer is fine as a leading man, it truly works when acting aside Johnny Depp as Tonto, who can be seen as an excuse for Depp to continue his outlandish acting after Jack Sparrow, but he does bring much dimension to a role that is essentially the Indian sidekick as he does provide funny moments, but is seen as a broken outsider, even from his tribe. That said, being that the film is called The Lone Ranger, it does at times feel like Tonto is the protagonist, given that he is unnecessarily the narrator.

Following his Oscar-nominated surreal Western animation Rango (which is still debatable about whether or not it is a childrenís film), Gore Verbinski is certainly stepping into familiar territory as heís directing a full-on western with a tone and budget to match his Pirates trilogy. With its elaborate production design and use of locations such as Monument Valley, Verbinski is showing off the epicness, as well as doing impressive action sequences, often associated with trains which strangely uses Gioachino Rossini's "William Tell Overture".

Despite its misfortune at the box office, The Lone Ranger isnít as bad as some thought. Given that it is Pirates in the Old West, as well as being long and baggy, Verbinskiís latest is a fun western that is epic and funny, along with Johnny Depp again going left-field.

Maybe Angie Errigo gave the film a 4* review because she actually enjoyed the film? Go and check out the Only God Forgives thread for a great example of how one person's opinion seems largely at odds with everyone else's. (On a personal level, I'd throw Stoker in there too. I watched it on the basis of two incredibly positive 5* Empire reviews, presumably from two different writers - yet the horrendous film I actually watched barely rated a single star IMO.) I suspect that the US reviewers brought their own agendas to the table rather than necessarily reviewing the film on its own merits.

On a related note, I'm always fascinated by why some films flop and others don't. For example, Tyler Perry and Adam Sandler films are essentially critic proof, in that they're almost always savaged by critics yet usually return respectable-to-stunning box office numbers. I haven't actually seen Lone Ranger but as far as I can tell, it's the kind of film that marketing alone should propel to success, despite bad reviews. Is it in fact possibly that in the loosest sense, 'the western' as a genre has no appeal any more? (Look at the recent failure of Cowboys And Aliens - no masterpiece but enjoyable enough, yet pummelled at the box office by the utterly dire Smurfs! But then, Django Unchained did very well, although there's little about it that's overtly 'western'.) Somebody on this thread mentioned the curse of sequelitis. Perhaps US cinemagoers in particular are so sheeplike that they'll only turn out in large numbers for known quantities like superhero films. The summer's other big 'original' tentpole effort - Pacific Rim - again has all the qualities necessary to be a huge hit, but didn't quite manage it. US punters, inexplicably, instead preferred to watch Grown Ups 2! I despair...

I've registered on this site just to express my respect to the author of this independent review, strangely rare for this movie. After the development hell this film got into critics' hell, while many viewers enjoy it.

I'm bored by sequels with their predictable narrative schemes, and it keeps me away from cinemas. "The Lone Ranger" is different from typical Hollywood production due to its irony, non-linear story structure, unpredictable narrative turns and attention to curious details. I enjoyed train scenes. Actually, I enjoyed every scene in it:) This movie is smart and worth watching with your children, with your friends and with your parents.

European viewers are lucky not to compare this fabulous movie to some early TV series. Also European viewers are lucky not to be ashamed by sad scene of genocide of Native Americans (which arises lots of discussions across the Internet), which IS a part of American history. Either you will have a good memorable time watching this movie, or you will follow the mass of floppish critics.

The Moore/Silverheels show? Sorry to correct you, but European viewers did get that show too

Piefroth - you may wish to look up the term 'libel' in whatever passes for a dictionary near you. Disagree with a review as you choose but this type of thing is never acceptable on this board. Any further similar comments will simply be removed.

There's nothing inherently bad about the film; it's just not interesting enough. There are flashes of greatness sprinkled here and there, but they're outnumbered by flashes of 'yes, get on with it'. The Lone Ranger does exactly what you expect it to, exactly when you expect it to, and for far too long.

Please accept this as an apologies for any offence taken to my previous post. It was meant as joke and is obvious it has not been taken as so as my tone wasn't conveyed in the post. It was purely a comment on how this review contrasts many others, I have no suspicions of Angie being given a back hander - that would be silly and I do not doubt her integrity. I think Angie herself was surprised as many of us that the film turned out to be pretty good. Although I still realise that this is a highly irresponsible comment.

Again, apologies for any offence caused. And I will take care in any future comments.

Saw this last night. Depp is likeable as always, but the tone is too dark at times and the pacing is off. I'm actually astounded how grim this is for a 12A, and the film struggles to rouse laughter when moments that would otherwise be funny follow such horrific scenes. Some movies succeed in striking this balance, but I don't think TLR did. The plot is predictable, the dialogue is workaday, the action although clever in places doesn't quite pop or thrill. I liked it, it's stayed with me a bit, and there are some genuinely moving moments, but I thought I was going to get relatively light hearted caper, and what I got was something a bit more somber. The horse is the best element; more of that please.

Was almost ready to dismiss this film, because really the story or genre of the film doesn't interest me too much, and also I am not a fan of the director, add to that the trailer's do make it look really bad. However having heard the wonderful Ruth Wilson talk about it on 5Live yesterday I am more inclined to give it a try. Her interview was great, she sold the film very well and was level headed and fair in her response to the criticism. I think maybe Depp should take tips from her in how to handle the press.